SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The DNC's Lawsuit Against WikiLeaks Is an Attack on the Freedom of the Press
It's a large world, filled with felonies big and misdemeanors small. And so I prefer to write long columns. But sometimes a short, sharp word is necessary. The Democratic Party is suing WikiLeaks and they shouldn't. As Glenn Greenwald wrote last week in The Intercept:
The Democratic National Committee filed a lawsuit this afternoon in a Manhattan federal court against the Russian government, the Trump campaign, and various individuals it alleges participated in the plot to hack its email servers and disseminate the contents as part of the 2016 election. The DNC also sued WikiLeaks for its role in publishing the hacked materials, though it does not allege that WikiLeaks participated in the hacking or even knew in advance about it; its sole role, according to the DNC's lawsuit, was publishing the hacked emails.
As Greenwald points out, the Dems' claim that "WikiLeaks is liable for damages it caused when it 'willfully and intentionally disclosed' the DNC's communications ... would mean that any media outlet that publishes misappropriated documents or emails (exactly what media outlets quite often do) could be sued by the entity or person about which they are reporting."
After the Manning releases in 2010, the Obama Justice Department wanted to sue WikiLeaks. However, they couldn't prove that anyone from WikiLeaks had actually stolen documents. They knew that suing WikiLeaks would have infringed on press freedom. Sue WikiLeaks, and you have to sue the Washington Post as well.
The DNC has no such qualms now.
Also at Al Jazeera.
See also: Why the DNC Is Fighting WikiLeaks and Not Wall Street
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday May 02 2018, @09:57PM (44 children)
I've been an Independent since being old enough to vote, and while Team D usually gets my votes, it's been harder and harder to justify over the years. What the DNC did to Sanders was despicable, leaving aside that he may actually have managed to beat Trump. I hate dynastic politics, and sincerely hope the Clintons and the Bushes end up right next to one another in Hell.
Ironically, Trump's election may actually turn out good for the US, or at least not a total disaster. Reason being, he's too much of an incompetent boob to do any real harm *if* he's kept in check (big "if," I know, and I'm not counting on it...), and he's damaging the GOP brand so badly this may allow Team Blue to take over for the next couple decades. Now, whether *that's* a good thing or not is questionable; I'd have said yes without hesitation in 2004 or 2008, but maybe not now. Especially since the Dems seem hellbent on "compromising" themselves right out the Overton Window and have become further right than Republicans were in Reagan's era.
Something needs to give. We need a party that's a voice for the poor, especially the rural poor. The Democrats haven't been that since McGovern lost to Nixon and they decided to sell their souls for votes.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02 2018, @10:03PM
Why do the poor need a voice? All they're going to say is "give, give, give".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02 2018, @10:04PM (5 children)
For Internet Savvy Potheads? If you think Team Blue is worth having, you're conveniently forgetting the 90s, during which the Clipper Chip, Encryption as a munition, and the DMCA were all being pushed. Red, White, and Blue politics all need to die in the US, preferably at the point of a spear.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02 2018, @10:22PM
Tipper Gore anyone?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by takyon on Wednesday May 02 2018, @10:43PM
Was there ever an FBI director that didn't support a war on encryption in the last 2 decades? Christopher Wray has had the exact same positions and talking points as Comey, and the next guy will say the same shit too. As for third parties, fat chance seeing a Green in office. We may see some kind of a quasi-third party or independent candidacy form from the ashes of the Democrats or (more likely?) the Republicans, but they will put mainstream law enforcement officers and military personnel in the FBI, NSA, etc. positions. The likes of Rand Paul or Ron Wyden will never be allowed to become President. They will be given the 1960s treatment.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:15PM (2 children)
I don't think Hazuma Azuki conveniently forgot anything. He (or she, whatever) wrote that he is not sure the party has been worth supporting since they lost to Nixon in the 1970s and moved right.
I think Sanders' Democratic Party is worth saving, setting aside the fact that Sanders is actually independent. Hillary's party is only preferable to the Republicans in the sense that having your legs blown off is better than getting decapitated. The blues still support gay rights and abortion rights and still oppose nonsense like intelligent design in public schools and abstinence-based sex education. So they're still a lesser of two evils.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:29PM (1 child)
She, and Hazuki (leaf + moon) Azuma (eastern/Tokyo), thanks. :) You can call me Marissa if you want, it's visible on my profile.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Friday May 04 2018, @08:38PM
Sorry, I hope the 'whatever' wasn't interpreted as insulting or callous. :)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday May 02 2018, @11:09PM (15 children)
Your real problem is that you the choice of two state-sanctioned political parties, which is how the owners of your country like it.
I live in a country of about 4 million people and we have 5 parties in Parliament at the moment. The UK has eight.
You are in a Nation of more than 300 million people and have had elections for longer than almost any other western country, but you've never managed to get to the point where multiple different voices can be heard.
It's a real shame.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RS3 on Thursday May 03 2018, @01:47AM (7 children)
100% agree with you. I've felt that way all of my adult life. 3rd parties occasionally make it into lower-level positions in local and state governments. I can only attribute the problem to money: wealthy powerful people, sometimes using corporations at their weapon of choice, buy all kinds of influence both privately and publicly. I've had this discussion for 20 years and I don't see any way to fix it. Anyone who gets into power either is part of the problem, or there's nothing they can do- it's too big- and they give up or get sucked into it. I'm not expert, nor have I read enough to be sure, but I'm pretty sure it's why Trump won- enough people are sick to death of the political machine in the US and they were hoping a relatively independent outsider could shake things up enough to stem the tide.
I vote to abolish political parties. No two candidates share the exact same platform. Get rid of parties, and have all candidates just make their political platform and beliefs known and go from there. I know, it will never happen.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by archfeld on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:48AM (3 children)
"...sometimes using corporations at their weapon of choice..."
I honestly think it is just the opposite; Extranational corporations using government agencies and elected officials as their weapons of choice. Money makes the world go 'round.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Thursday May 03 2018, @04:30AM (2 children)
And one merely needs to look at your sig to see the obvious rebuttal. The NSA is no corporation's tool. Else they wouldn't have screwed over without consequence so many corporations in the past.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Thursday May 03 2018, @08:03PM (1 child)
There are always exceptions to the rule, but you can't deny that the EPA, the FCC, FDA, and several other alphabet agencies are battle grounds for corporate wars, and our congress is FULL of part time corporate sponsored employees. The SEC, the NSA, the FTC are certainly much more in control than the rest of our government structure.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 18 2018, @12:20AM
And several of those work counter to corporate interests, such as the EPA and the FDA. Corporations certainly didn't win a war against the EPA, for example.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bobthecimmerian on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:21PM (2 children)
I don't think abolishing political parties is practical, so I would go the route that the UK and Germany have. In elections you don't vote for the candidate, you vote for the party. And then the party gets seats in Congress based on the vote percentages and party leaders choose the people to fill the seats.
The current US system is plurality-takes-all, and in 99% of cases a Democrat wins or a Republican wins. The Green Party candidate, Libertarian Party candidate, Reform Party candidate, Constitution Party candidate, Patriot Party candidate, and Communist party candidate can get 0.5%, 1%, 8% of the vote and it doesn't matter because the Republican or Democrat is going to get 40%+ and win. Most of the voters hate the two parties but won't vote for a third party candidate because they know the end result on public policy is nil. But with the vote-for-party system, if the Democrats get 38% of the votes they get 38% of the seats, if the Republicans get 45% of the votes they get 45% of the seats, and if the Libertarians get 10% they get 10%.... so the people voting away from the Big Two still get a voice in the legislature unless their party is especially unpopular.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday May 03 2018, @06:34PM (1 child)
The problem with voting for candidates and not parties is that, while people can certainly inspect the Presidential candidates in the run-up, and maybe some of the Congressional ones, voters just don't have the time, energy, or will to carefully examine all the various candidates at all levels on their ballot. That's why we have parties; it's like a "brand".
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday May 04 2018, @12:34PM
The other question is why spend any time learning about their platform, as though what they say on a campaign has any predictive power whatsoever over what they would do in office? Everytime somebody says that i laugh ruefully.
The only useful exercise, if you're gonna insist on wasting time researching the motivations of the psychopaths our political system cultivates, is to follow the money. Look up who their donors and bundlers are. Look at who their campaign managers and handlers are. Those people are the strings that make the puppet dance for the masters.
Me, i think we need to reset the dial for democracy entirely, but let's at least see what we have now with clear eyes.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:54AM (5 children)
The US system is designed this way.
We have first past the goal post winner takes all elections. This system has been shown to lead to a two party system (Duverger's law).
Some states like California have completely disenfranchised 3rd party and independent voters. Proposed by a Republican senator, and backed by the, then Republican governor (and undoubtedly equally loved by the Dems), the law eliminates any but the two highest vote recipients in the primaries from appearing on the general election ballot. They even eliminated the ability to write in a candidate. Yup, complete disenfranchisement for those who refuse to vote for either of the corrupt major parties.
At the presidential election level, we have an organization founded and controlled by the two major parties controlling who participates, the format, number, location, and rules of the debates. They once changed the rules for participating in debates the night before a debate to keep out a candidate that was apparently threatening to the establishment candidates.
Jerrymandered districts mean that the outcome of many elections is preordained-- of course, never going to a third party / independent.
There are also policies to prevent folks from organizing and unifying against the rich elites (who control both major parties). Race has been used for this for nearly the history of the nation-- keep the plebs fighting among themselves, and they won't notice the masters holding the whips. Suppression of the left has been part of this (both the brutal kind including executions, and more mundane like renaming International Workers Day aka May Day. May Day came about after the Haymarket labor leader executions in the US (one of the executed was not even present during the demonstration that led to the executions, and there was no evidence that any of the executed were linked to the attack on the cops they were convicted of). It is still observed nearly everywhere in the world, except in the US. To prevent US labor from having something to rally around, it was renamed to Loyalty Day, then to Law Day (both of the latter promoting obedience). Also, we have laws that prevent solidarity among workers like Taft Hartley. By keeping plebs from organizing together, they've kept us from reaching a critical mass where a non-elite controlled political organization had enough people behind it to challenge the two rich elite friendly/run establishment parties.
Trump is a complete moron with the intellect of a tin can, and policies hostile to all but himself (and the rest of the rich). But, at least the "fuck you [to the establishment]" votes that folks threw his way may mean that it is possible to overcome these obstacles (hopefully in a positive direction next time).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday May 03 2018, @03:22AM (4 children)
Trump and Sanders were independent candidates working within the two-party system. In both cases, they faced obstacles within the party. Trump took advantage of the crowd of Republican candidates with very little support individually and manipulated the media into giving himself all the free airtime he wanted. Sanders on the other hand put up a pretty good fight but was opposed by the Clinton taint within the DNC and not given the airtime he needed.
Trump has set an example for future "third-party" candidates. Don't run as a Green, Independent, Libertarian, write-in, whatever. Run as a Democrat or Republican. Make as much noise as possible. Never apologize for anything; always double down. If you can win in the primary, then you become one of the big 2 instead of the outsider who'd be swell to vote for but is considered a "wasted vote".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_tent [wikipedia.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Thursday May 03 2018, @01:55PM (3 children)
Sanders was just too ethical and decent; that was his problem. If he had said all kinds of outrageous and inflammatory stuff, and then refused to apologize and doubled-down, he would have gotten lots of free media coverage, and could have won the primary vote. Basically, that's what Trump did. Making up nasty pet names for his Dem opponents (esp. Hillary, but also the others earlier on) would have helped too.
I think we all owe Trump a debt of gratitude for the 2016 election, for showing us as a nation what a farce our elections really are, and how easy they are to game if you play it right.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:32PM (1 child)
I'm not sure that adopting that persona and going after Hillary strongly would have helped Sanders as much. The supporters are different, etc. But there's one thing I can point to. "[The] American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!" Sanders essentially tossed the issue to the curb with that one line, earning him some applause and praise but not much else. Trump focused on it throughout the year and got an email-related October surprise from his biggest (unintentional?) supporter, FBI Director Comey.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday May 03 2018, @06:32PM
Yeah, you're probably right. The supporters are so different that acting like Trump probably wouldn't have helped. But I do wonder if trying to focus more on her negatives and tearing her down would have helped him win the primaries. He tried to run a principled campaign focused on the issues, which is laudable, but as we've seen over and over, it just doesn't work that well in the real world.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:21PM
Yeah, my reaction to his loss when I was talking to a friend was "Figures. We all know what happened to the *last* socialist Jew who said to be good to the poor, don't we?" To which he said "Yeah, and they don't listen to him either."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:10PM
That's not quite true. It is definitely true now, but it was not for many years. For a great example just look at the elections the year Lincoln was elected. There were quite a few parties involved. I forget the exact number but 6 or 7 floated their candidates against Lincoln and he won with only something like 20-25% of the vote. We once did have multiple voices, but they have been trying to entrench two parties only for a long time.
I think they're going about it the wrong way though. If you want different parties you shouldn't try to simply elect a third party candidate to the Presidency. You need support to build on the lower levels so when that candidate makes it to the White House they don't become a plain affiliate for one party or another.
(Score: 3, Funny) by NewNic on Wednesday May 02 2018, @11:42PM (7 children)
I agree that the Dems have proven themselves corrupt with their handling of Sanders and too cozy with business, but the way I see it is that voting for the right-wing party is not the solution to the problem of the Dems being insufficiently left wing.
The solution (if any really exists) is found in the primaries.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday May 02 2018, @11:48PM (4 children)
All the big things under Obama were incredibly right wing:
- war expansion, both in the # of countries and troops
- look forward not backward WRT torture
- mass surveillance
- socialize losses, privatize profits (for banks and Wall St.)
- Obama even played the same games w/ PlanB that GWB did, to the point some Admin major over-ruled the Harvard MD at the FDA.
- Expansion of fracking
- Deporter in chief
Obama was a Republican's wet dream, and HRC would have been even worse.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday May 03 2018, @12:38AM (3 children)
It should also be mentioned that the Affordable Care Act, which was trumpeted as Obama's main left-wing accomplishment, was really a right-wing idea that functioned at least as much as a giveaway to the insurance industry as a way of granting access to health care.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @01:41AM (2 children)
The Democrats had a supermajority for a few years and yet didn't seriously try to get single payer or even a public option. Both things were mentioned briefly, but they gave up instantly. That tells you all you need to know about where their interests lie in general. It's not all because of Republican obstructionism like some people claim.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:18AM (1 child)
Dennis Kucinich, the last congressman trying to hold out for a public option, recently talked about trying to negotiate with Obama about it. Basically, Obama made it abundantly clear to Kucinich that there was no way, no how, any kind of public option included in the ACA.
The "Oh, the Republicans wouldn't let us" argument is almost always complete hokum.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday May 04 2018, @12:39PM
Excellent sub-thread, guys. You're both dead on. People like you should form the core of a real progressive party. You'd get my vote.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday May 03 2018, @12:20AM (1 child)
The DNC knows full well about that risk to their gravy train, and have taken steps [theintercept.com] to prevent those pesky citizens and non-corporate-approved candidates from causing problems with primary votes.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:54AM
I read that Intercept piece, and it just confirmed what I already thought.
Both of your political parties are in the business of enriching themselves, and their interests don't coincide with yours unless you happen to be able to contribute to their reelection campaign.
It's an odd way to run a country.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02 2018, @11:49PM
Sort of my history. My votes were Bush sr. Clinton. Third party in 96. Was for McCain over Bush jr(really hated the push calls Rove did against McCain) so voted third party again in 2000 and 04. In 08 I voted Obama. After reading his book I thought he could be change but that was a mistake and so third party again in 12. And again in 16. Trump is horrible and ruining our checks and balances. But I don’t regret not supporting Clinton. She was horrible in other ways.
Not sure if I will vote Dem in 2020. I won’t vote for Trump though.
On wedge issues I vote for gays and trans. I vote for guns. I vote for abortion rights til the third trimester(assuming mothers life isn’t in danger).
Which given the current political stances sure makes it frustrating who to choose.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @12:59AM
The democrats were always and still are the party of white trash, Richard Daley, George Wallace that use use worker gangs to shake down small businesses. They epitomize banal machine politics, with the Clintons being the shining beacon.
The Democrats haven't been that since McGovern lost to Nixon and they decided to sell their souls for votes.
No, it happened when they chose Humphrey over Eugene McCarthy in '68. We know what they did to Bobby.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Arik on Thursday May 03 2018, @03:53AM (3 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:17PM (2 children)
Carter was and is an honorable man, orders of magnitude better than ANYONE since Truman and anyone after him. His presidency was before my time, at least in this body, but he's someone I could comfortably vote for. What are the chances we'll ever see his kind running for President again, though?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday May 03 2018, @08:59PM (1 child)
I saw something similar in Ron Paul but of course no one like that will be allowed to win the office again as things stand.
Unless they sneak in with the Trump maneuver, of course, but that one will probably never work again now that it's been seen once.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday May 04 2018, @04:13AM
Ron Paul is not worthy to tie Carter's shoes. You're delusional.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:12PM (5 children)
>We need a party that's a voice for the poor, especially the rural poor.
We have this party: it's called the Republiican Party. They're the party that aligns with the rural poor on the two issues they care most about: guns and abortion (and the closely-related third issue: religion). Republicans oppose all gun laws, and oppose abortion, so the rural poor will vote for them on that basis no matter what their stances on other issues are, even if the Republicans pass tax plans and other policies that end up economically hurting the rural poor.
Another party is not going to get the support of the rural poor unless they adopt the GOP positions on guns, abortion, and religion. And such a party is going to be automatically voted against by atheistic urban liberals like me.
(Score: 4, Informative) by bobthecimmerian on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:34PM (3 children)
That's an oversimplification of the situation. Part of the reason the rural poor align with the Republicans is because they feel abandoned by the Democrats on issues of jobs and quality of life, and they feel abandoned because they are abandoned. As the grandparent post wrote, the mainstream Democrats sold their soul to start winning elections in the early 1970s after they lost to Nixon and the famous 'Southern Strategy'. They cut back on their fights for minimum wage and their strong ties to labor unions. The only Democrat response to "The jobs are going away!" has been "education!", but I don't care how many PhDs you take with you into the coal mining town where I grew up, nobody's hiring. There were several coal mines still working and three big manufacturers within 20 miles in 1985, they're all gone now.
At best the Democrats had no ideas, at worst they don't give a damn about anyone outside major urban areas. The Republicans with their "drill here, drill now!" and "clean coal" and "America first" and "trickle down" are consistent on their lie that they'll revitalize rural economies. They won't revitalize urban areas. But the Republicans are on message, they're consistent, they're winning support with the narrative that the Democrats hate rural whites.
On the bright side, Hillary lost. I'd rather have her as president than Trump, but hopefully this is the wake up call the party needs to remind it that they've lost most of the good qualities they had fifty years ago. The surge in worker strikes across the country is encouraging too.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday May 03 2018, @03:09PM (1 child)
The Democrats have a huge propaganda problem, because no matter how many times that kind of thing is repeated, oil states like North Dakota have skyrocketed up from being pretty poor, to being the 16th highest income state in the country, whereas Democratically controlled states like Michigan remain mired in poverty, ranking 33rd highest in the country. Surely if Michigan would just increase taxes and regulations some more, then they'll finally be wealthy, LOL, they just need to do what doesn't work even harder, LOL.
I mean, its not just that the message doesn't sell, or that the message isn't being repeated enough, but there's not enough centralized control. So in related news stories its all about massive hiring in the Dakotas or job shortages in the Dakotas or house prices tripling in the Dakotas meanwhile there are "unrelated" stories about house prices in Detroit going to zero and abandoned houses being demolished and no jobs in Detroit and everywhere there's a democrat government there's, purely coincidentally, a food desert and dead malls and high gun crime and stuff like that.
I would imagine with increased social media and central control of the media via mergers, they'll be able to put propaganda like that out with a straight face and no opposition by cheating the public. Censor some wikipedia articles of actual numbers for being racist or something, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income [wikipedia.org]
That also ties in to the problem of the Democrats can only win by propaganda / lying / cognitive dissonance, whereas the other side is fact and reality based, which is a much easier sell even if what remains of legacy media is screaming in unified, centralized, corrupt opposition.
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Friday May 04 2018, @08:34PM
North Dakota has a small population, so the income boost from a few oil and gas companies has a huge impact on the state economy. The same amount of drilling in Michigan, which has thirteen times the population, wouldn't do as much. So you're lying with statistics too, though I'm not sure whether it's intentional or not.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday May 03 2018, @06:24PM
>On the bright side, Hillary lost. I'd rather have her as president than Trump, but hopefully this is the wake up call the party needs to remind it that they've lost most of the good qualities they had fifty years ago.
I'd say the article we're discussing here is proof that the party remains completely clueless and is doubling down on the stupidity that lost them the election.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:16PM
I disagree. Minnesota has, at least at the state level, a Democratic Farmers' Party. And as things stand now, the GOP's disgraceful Trump-sucking has gotten so bad that even some of the "guns, God, and gay-bashing" types are starting to realize they've been taken for a ride. I never said it was gonna be easy, but it should be possible to have a party that actually stands for peoples' rights--ALL of them--and does something besides lip service for the suffering rural poor.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by VLM on Thursday May 03 2018, @02:54PM
... solely and exclusively with people who would never have voted for him anyway.
Only the RINO cucks think if they debase themselves, their people, their country, and their beliefs far enough, repeatedly in public, then the Communist Party USA Inc will finally give them their endorsement, and gaining that endorsement would somehow mean they'd win either the support of their party or win the general election.
To some extent its a very leftist propaganda effort to encourage that belief in public as much as possible to help the left. "Obviously the only way Trump can win again in 2020 would be to stop improving trade deals and ending Korean war and generally winning so much that we're tired of winning, instead focus really hard on gaining the endorsement of Maxine Waters because that's whats good for America and guarantees a win in 2020".
My gut level guess is the Nobel committee will not give him his peace prize for ending the Korean war until 2021 because if some Russian on social media saying it would be bad when Hillary starts a nuclear war with Russia is somehow "illegal interference with elections", then awarding a peace prize a year or two before re-election would be even worse.
Have to realize there's not much of a Democratic party left to fight Trump in 2020... they got legacy Hillary who's more of a millstone around their necks, some high school crisis actors taking a break from eating tide pods to crusade for gun control, and pr0n star who doesn't even have a clinton-era blue dress. And that's the best the party can offer. May as well resign, give the money back to the investors, and let a new party become America's second political party.